steen

Here is EVERY scientific medical article posted on the medical abstracts list (medline) found through a search in OVID, covering the time from now, back 5 years. (Entire abstracts and references available)

The studies are

1: Lash (6/04) – unknown number of women (all women giving birth 1987-1999 in MA).
Epidemiological study.
Finding: Abortion protects against breast cancer in women who gave birth at least once.

2: Beral (3/04) –53 studies comparing the prospective studies (44,000 breast cancer cases) and retroactive studies (39,000 breast cancer cases).
Meta-analysis of prospective and retroactive studies.
Finding: No evidence of spontaneous or induced abortion causing breast cancer. Older retroactive studies were imprecise (These are the ones the PL like to cite) “yielded misleading results.”

3: Palmer (3/04) – Black Women’s Health Study, 348 cases of breast cancer.
Prospective cohort study.
Finding: induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk in African-American women.

4: ACOG (8/03, 11/03) – review of all studies.
Review article
Finding: studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

5: Paoletti (8/03) – 100,000 women, 2600+ breast cancer cases.
Prospective cohort study.
Finding: there is no relationship between breast cancer and induced abortion but that an association with spontaneous abortion is possible and may depend on menopausal status

6: Becher (2/03) – 706 breast cancer patients.
Case control study.
Finding: Genetics were biggest risk factor, multiple pregnancies and long-duration breastfeeding were most protective factors. History of abortion and age of menses had no effect.

7: Mahue (3/03) – 744 breast cancer patients.
Retroactive study.
Finding: Breast cancer after giving birth not related to miscarriage or induced abortion. Among women who never gave birth, risk was lower with history of an induced abortion (“although the risk estimate was imprecise.)” “ Risk declined as the number of induced abortions increased (P = 0.04). Our results do not support the hypothesis that induced abortion or miscarriage increase the breast cancer risk of young women.”

8: Erlandsson – (2/03). All Swedish women giving birth 1973-1991.
Prospective case-control study.
Finding: “In conclusion, neither a history of induced nor spontaneous abortions is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Our data suggest a protective effect of pregnancies regardless of outcome.”

Now, note this study. It SPECIFICALLY investigated the hormonal effect. What they specifically studied was this:

“”””It has been suggested that abortions leave the breast epithelium in a proliferative state with an increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis.””””

In other words, that hormonal effects on the breast from inducing abortions or from interrupting pregnancy makes the woman more susceptible to breast cancer. And, of course, their finding STILL showed this not to be the case. This was a case-control study, as accurate as they get. Those of you who question the hormone issue, go read this study.

9: Ye (10/02). 267,040 women, 652 (or more)
Prospective, randomized case-control study.
Breast cancer not associated with abortions, with number of abortions, or with abortions after first birth. They have this comment, though” Few women had undergone an abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias.”

10: Chaudry (4/02) – 245 African-American families.
Prospective epidemiological study of specific breast cancer gene.
Finding: “This putative gene was found to interact significantly with age at menarche (P = 0.048), and an interaction with a history of spontaneous abortions was suggested (P = 0.08). A late age at menarche increased BC risk in gene carriers but had a protective effect in non-gene carriers. A history of spontaneous abortions had a protective effect in gene carriers and increased BC risk in non-gene carriers.”

11: Davidson (12/01) – Review of all articles.
Review Article
Finding: “Over recent years, concerns have been raised about a possible causal relation between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer”….” refuting this hypothesis and concludes that there are, to date, insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counselling them about abortion”
This article ALSO mainly looked at the issue of hormonal changes

12: Sanderson (6/01) – 1459 breast cancer patients
Prospective epidemiological study
Finding: there was no relation between ever having had an induced abortion and breast cancer

13: Newcomb (10/00). 252 breast cancer patients
Prospective case-control study.
Finding: No connection between breast cancer and induced or spontaneous abortion in women, whether they ever gave birth or not.

14: Tang (3/00) 463 breast cancer patients and controls.
Case-controlled cohort study
Finding: Induced abortion in women who later give birth does not cause risk for breast cancer.

And for good meassure, here is that Cancer Society link again:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/co...ast_Cancer.asp

What the Experts Say

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

Breast cancer risk is transiently (temporarily) increased after a term pregnancy [resulting in the birth of a living child].

Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

SHodges

I've never once heard of anyone saying that it did. I had no idea it was a "risk".

__________________
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

steen

It isn't, but many prolife sites claim that abortion indeed does cause breast cancer. Start looking at your favorite anti-choice sites and search on breast cancer. You will be amazed how many of them make this false claim despite the solid research against it. They are pro lie sites, not prolife.

SHodges

I have no favorite anti-choice sites, I'd just as soon avoid them, so I'll take your word for it. I've never heard a pro-lifer talk of the womans health, usually just stuff about spirits and superstition and how evil it is to kill a collection of cells.

Felicity

no info regarding women who had abortions and breast cancer but who had no children.


Beral V. Bull D. Doll R. Peto R. Reeves G. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries.[see comment]. [Review] [85 refs] [Journal Article. Multicenter Study. Review] Lancet. 363(9414):1007-16, 2004 Mar 27.

1. ...and age at first birth...

2. Because the extent of under-reporting of past induced abortions might be influenced by whether or not women had been diagnosed with breast cancer, results of the studies--including a total of 44000 women with breast cancer--that used prospective information on abortion (ie, information that had been recorded before the diagnosis of breast cancer) were considered separately from results of the studies--including 39000 women with the disease--that used retrospective information (recorded after the diagnosis of breast cancer).

3. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions.

1. See my explanation above in LASH.
2. A very large portion of the studies (nearly HALF) were “considered separately” due to a lack of pre-cancer diagnosis recorded proof of abortion—supposedly eliminating the “recall bias” factor.
3. Personally—I’m having a hard time understanding how women who have cancer are MORE likely to be honest than women who don’t have cancer....except that that is very convenient to SOME studies that get discounted based on “recall bias”—even though several of the studies you cited rely on the SAME type of information gathering processes.





Mahue-Giangreco M. Ursin G. Sullivan-Halley J. Bernstein L. Induced abortion, miscarriage, and breast cancer risk of young women. [Journal Article] Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 12(3):209-14, 2003 Mar.

1. findings depend heavily on the comparison group and that the use of parous women as a reference group for nulliparous women may artificially inflate risk.
744 patients < or =40 years of age

2. In-person interviews were conducted to obtain a detailed reproductive history.

1. The AGE of the women should be considered a "quite young" population to be studying--I wonder how many of those women got BC in their middle and late 40s, 50s, 60s......??????
2. It’s hypocritical to discount one study based on recall bias—and then use the same sort of study to SUPPORT your point of view. Either it is NOT VALID or it IS VALID—Again—it’s the same “recall bias” question—why is okay for studies that support the conclusion that there is no ABC link—but NOT OKAY for findings that conclude there IS a link?



Note purple text in quote above

Note purple text in quote above



Sanderson M. Shu XO. Jin F. Dai Q. Wen W. Hua Y. Gao YT. Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 92(6):899-905, 2001 Jun 15.

In-person interviews were completed with 1,459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry,

This is a SURVEY (“response rates”) thus—once again the hypocritical okay to have “recall bias” if it supports a preferred conclusion





And for good meassure.........check this out...
LONG-TERM PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
OF INDUCED ABORTION:
A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
John M. Thorp, Jr., MD
Department of Epidemiology

..........
INDUCED ABORTION AND SUBSEQUENT BREAST CANCER
As described earlier, we have addressed the linkages between induced abortion and breast neoplasia
differently from the other topics. Rather than replicate the tables and works of numerous other authors we have
summarized four review articles(81,82,83,84), one of which conducted a meta-analysis.(83) (Table 6) Two of the
four reviewers(81,82)found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer, while one found a “small to
non-significant effect”.(84) The sole meta-analysis by Brind et al reported a summary odds ratio for breast cancer
of 1.3 (95% C1 1.2,1.4) in patients with a previous induced abortion.(83) They concluded that induced abortion is
an independent risk factor for breast carcinoma.(83)
All the reviews comment on the potential for bias in data collection, presentation, and analysis emphasizing
in particular the sensitive nature of abortion with its potential for under-reporting. All the reviewers acknowledge
that these potential biases could obscure real relations or create spurious associations. In addition reviewers
comment on the high likelihood of a “file drawer” effect with pertinent studies being withheld from publication due
to the highly politicized atmosphere in which their findings would be reported. None of the reviewers seems to be
comfortable with the scope and content of the current literature. Each advocates for the analysis of prospectively
gathered data that link known pregnancy outcomes to subsequent neoplastic events.(28,85) Brind et al have clearly
demonstrated the need for such studies by showing that despite the relatively low increase in risk they discovered,
the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion would ensure a substantial impact on women’s health
if their conclusions are correct.(83) Weed and Kramer have thoughtfully considered the ways in which the
conclusions one draws on this “thorny” issue are influenced by the moral values each reviewer brings to these
complex data.(85) Nonetheless, a statistically significant positive association between induced abortion and
breast cancer cannot be easily dismissed as Brind’s is the only quantitative review.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...th+thorp&hl=en

Felicity

vergiss

Hate to disappoint you Flick, but the voices in your head aren't a reliable source.

Something can cause anything. Woo freaking hoo, we all have to die one day.

Felicity

I'm guessing you're talking at me--since "Flick" is closest to my name....Ummmm--those are the sources steen supplied--so they're not valid? Okay.

vergiss

And those sources aren't the ones I'm talking about.

Felicity

So you don't have a relevent point to the discussion?

Bullets can cause brain damage...you don't go shootin' yourself in the head because "we all have to die one day."

Your's is an inane comment--pointless, then.